Deal with it

Dragon isn't a gender tho

no, because dragons all came from snake-like creatures, all this shit is just authors trying to be 'unique' and add upon shit.

Deal with it.

If Mayo is a gender then so is Dragon. As they say in the furfag community, "Fuck you Imma Dragon!"

Nope. In Fantasy Craft, drakes are just small dragons. Various splinter race feats allow them to be other creatures like hydras or sea monsters, or to get different types of breath weapon.

>Standard fantasy naming convention
>Just authors trying to be unique

Stop putting us in arbitrary categories. Imagine if you were human and someone told you you're not really female because you lack certain body parts or have too many.

drake and dragon are variations of the same word. "drake" is just an older version of "dragon".

wyrm means exactly the same thing. it's just the germanic way of saying dragon as opposed to the latin/greek version.

>standard fantasy naming convention

Wyvern actually does refer to a different type of monster. The rest aren't really standard

>Standard fantasy naming convention
It is not the standard fantasy naming convention.

By this, Smaug and St George's Dragon would be 'wyerns', all this stuff came up in the last hundred years as categories than catch-all name for dragons in general, so yes, it's fantasy authors trying to be unique.

Drake, wyvern and wyrm are all dragons. They're just alternate terms or terms for a specific type of dragon.

...

>Standard fantasy naming convention

This is a drake, despite everybody ever calling it a dragon.

Not sure if bait or not; anyways,OP is a faggot.

Nope, it's just an eastern dragon.

Wyvern isn't. Drake actually is
>A wyvern (/ˈwaJvərn/ weye-vərn, sometimes spelled wivern), known as Viverna in Italian, is a legendary creature with a dragon's head and wings, a reptilian body, two legs, and a tail.

>huge
>majestic
>four legs

That is not a dragon.

bogleech.com/dragons.html

Exactly the way I like it.
The only problem is where and how put in asian dragon since it plays diffrent role.

>implying there aren't winged drakes
>implying there aren't legless wyverns
>implying not all dragons are wyrms
>implying dragons can only have 6 limbs

the defying characteristics of draconic species or breeds vary from setting to setting, that said, settings that include such a limited variations are shit.

quetzalcoatl best dragon.

Wizdom.

>ERMAHGERD LONG PORK

Tolkien's dragons would fit more in Wyrm. They're horrible fuckhuge snakes with legs, unless they have wings in which case they don't fit all that well in any of these

this would be nice to put in a setting that has never had any tales of dragons at all

Call them long, intentionally misunderstand people when they assume it's due to length.

If people understand the same thing when hearing a given name, they are standard

>Fantasy authors all want to be unique the same way

The best dragon gets no love. Romano-Greco-Dacian Draco, never seen, never fought, never loved. Giant fucking snake, sure, but the granddaddy of it all

>Standard fantasy naming convention

Take a look at the Talk page on the wiki article for wyvern, particularly "Unrelated creatures". There is a distinction in heraldry where things get tricky, but wyverns are dragons seem acceptable beyond heraldry.

>thefreedictionary.com/wyvern

What do you call each of these then ?

If you call all of them 'dragon', how do you distinguish between them when two or more exist in the same setting ?

Seems about right.

But people don't understand the same thing

There, found the picture I was looking for

They also have mind control powers

Why can't you just accept that the giant scaley sometimes fire breathing beasts have a lot of different human names?

I don't call them all the same thing.

I just don't always call them the exact same thing.

Because just like everything else

it

depends

on

the

s e t t i n g

Because I don't think we are talking about a setting, aren't we ?

These definitions are completely arbitrary.
Just like why anyone would give a shit.

>If people understand the same thing when hearing a given name, they are standard
>People understand this is a dragon

Doesn't matter what you call them, they're all dragons if the setting says they're all the dragons. The setting could even say that drakes, wyrms, and wyverns are all dragons.

We are.

Right, we're talking about real life wyverns.

The average person doesn't, and scholars from different places probably frequently disagree on how to categorize the varieties.

Describe them, give the different variations names like what is done. But don't say that they aren't dragons when it is just anatomical variation that separates them. Think of what D&D did with the Dragon type and 'true dragons'.

It is like having your image of a dog be a husky and having collies and dachshund not be dogs because of their coat or leg length.

The only place this shit matters is heraldry.

Considering the hundreds of fictional languages present in many RPGs, I assume scientists have deveoped a universal system like in the real world. If not, that is a purely scientific issue

>dragons are insects

>If you call all of them 'dragon', how do you distinguish between them when two or more exist in the same setting ?
depends on the ancestry of the being, but usually
dragon is used in setting for really big draconic beings
drake for small to mid sizes, usually younger
wyrms is an all catch term for the line, but better emphasises when the draconic being has more serpentine characteristics than a more rigid structure
wyverns are winged, not 4 legged and don't breath fire, they are farther from the main draconic bloodline

not all fantasy settings require arbitrary and clear differentiation, some things can be called the same but have numerous forms and have numerous names for the same form.

deal with it

...

>deal with it
But you are (mostly) agreeing with me

They are all dragons but each type is called drakes, or wyverns, or whatever. Its like fucking gorrillas and chimps all being apes.

All lindworms are dragons, but not all dragons are lindworms.

>the only fictional creatures that are allowed to have 6 limbs must be insectoid
next you will tell me I can't have 4 limbed giant scorpions in my fictional universe because arachnids will always have 8 legs

note >usually

>not all fantasy settings require arbitrary and clear differentiation
>some things can be called the same but have numerous forms and have numerous names for the same form.

I would find something like this agreeable.

Man, what a big drake. Good thing it's not considered a dragon or anything, right?

>dragons / reptiles

Reptiles have cold blood
Dragons have warm blood

It follows that dragons are mammals.

An odd and confusing distinction between arms and legs, but passable

>these are the only names for these that are the only forms
>these forms can have many names and each name can be assigned to multiple forms

>agreeing statements

.>modern definitions

The only time the definitions were different, we didn't have the word dragon to define. Of all the things humanity has changed in it's chaos we seem to be pretty solid on our fictional reptiles. Meanwhile humanity can;t get it's shit together over brontosaurus, pandas, et cetera...

>it follows that dragons are mammals
They lay eggs, and aren't monotremes. Dragons are clearly close descendants of theropods.

Sorry, but I just couldn't decide if those were legs or arms. I know it's a jarring discrepancy but... They really use them for arms and not legs right?

Yes, but what of the four-legged category? don't the winged variety sometimes use their forelimbs as arms, and the non-winged mainly as legs? That's why it's kinda confusing

I'll admit, I can't find anything about how the practice of taxonomy worked historically outside Europe, but I find it hard to believe it was so clear and universal in ancient times.

Magic tends to help.

That's a Shen Long.

i dunno, does it depend on how you walk? Like a bear has arms but they run on all fours right? I actually am really confused now.

...

That's either a Shen Long or a Wyrm.

Okay, my point was that calling limbs of the reptile with only two forelimbs "arms" and the limbs of the reptiles with all four limbs "legs" is confusing.

>That's why it's kinda confusing
arms are just legs that aren't used for deambulation, legs are just arms that are used for deambulation.

stop being autistic or call them limbs.

hm, so do you want legs, arms -> limbs
or maybe frontlimbs are arms, and backlimbs are legs?

Bog leech is a cherry picking faggot.
He pretends that those paintings that originate from mostly france and italy were the only ways dragons were depicted or even the first.
The dragon from beowulf predates all those examples he gives and is fairly close to the modern depictions of dragons.
Thats because beowulfs dragon is a pagan era scandanavian dragon which is the biggest influence on modern authors while the medieval latin dragons faded into obscurity.
If that post was talking about how most dragons draw this one source and that there were other contemporary versions then I could understand it But that would also be pretty pointless since we already accept chinese dragons for example but bogleech seems more concerned with parading around his "forbidden knowledge" then he is trying to actually inspire people to draw from more sources.

but four-legged creatures can use their forelimbs as arms, and two-leeged creatures with only forelimbs can use them for deambulation

>frontlimbs are arms, and backlimbs are legs?
that's the usual distinction, but scientifically just "upper and lower limb" is better

>picture title: when your friend is a demon
You had one job asshole.
Title should be when your friend is a slut , cause she is deep throating that samwhich nigga.

Yeah I said samwhich, deal with it bitches.

Birds are warmblooded you idiot

Hell there are warm blooded fish for christ sake.

Hm well I read some stuff and I think this is good:
The last one might move more like a snake of course, so its probably a pseudo bipedal/lateral undulating reptilian

Excellent, good job

Fish is the most meaningless word in geneology/taxonomy though. two fish might be genetically more distant than say you and a banana.

>lumping a hexapod in with a bunch of tetrapods and saying they're from the same genus
wew learn your taxonomy.

T-thanks a-user.

please pat me on the h-head

...

Thats only because of how old the group is.

Boo, eastern dragons have an odd number of legss!

Rolled 5 (1d20)

*pats on head*
roll to see outcome of this action

you know that taxonomy is the oldest and yet dumbest science in the world right? It's basically an autistic war about what things should be called.

>two fish might be genetically more distant than say you and a banana
Holy shit stop talking about shit you know nothing about.

...

that is literally awesome

That is an accurate statement

>Because the term "fish" is defined negatively, and excludes the tetrapods (i.e., the amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) which descend from within the same ancestry, it is paraphyletic, and is not considered a proper grouping in systematic biology.
maybe you should too?